PC Foul called - Lowering the shoulder or not LGP (Video)

[bucky]

Should have been a no call.

[JRutledge]

Play #2: Another one


Peace

[bob jenkins]

PC on both. The second is easier.

[bucky]

Easy PC foul in second video.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I have yet to see anything that suggests a defender like this is not in LGP. He is doing all the things required and gets run into. PC foul all day and twice on Sunday.

Peace

Originally Posted by Kelvin green

I’m with JRut... what did the defender do wrong? In many plays we assume that the defender is wrong but why? What we need to do is officiate from the presumption that defenders play legally. ( we officiate the defense) ... we should never penalize good defense but it happens all too often....in this play the defender has done nothing wrong and gets displaced.

I like this call and think it is exactly what needed to be called...

I have the dribbler getting head/shoulders past the defender based on the direction the dribbler was moving and the defender lost LGP and need to get back in the path facing the opponent to reestablish it. Instead the defender was running beside the dribbler and never got back to LGP.

[ChuckS]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

I have the dribbler getting head/shoulders past the defender based on the direction the dribbler was moving and the defender lost LGP and need to get back in the path facing the opponent to reestablish it. Instead the defender was running beside the dribbler and never got back to LGP.

If we agree that the defender lost LGP, can't this still be a foul on the offense? Rule 4-23-1 states "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent". I interpret that to mean that LGP is required to obtain a charge call. But not all PC fouls are charges.

If A1 grabs a rebound and goes full speed the length of the court, with B1 alongside him, but having never obtained LGP, and A1, frustrated with B1's close proximity, shoves him, that is a PC foul on A1, correct?

[deecee]

Play 1 - ideally a CNC otherwise PC.
Play 2 - PC

[crosscountry55]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If we agree that the defender lost LGP, can't this still be a foul on the offense? Rule 4-23-1 states "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent". I interpret that to mean that LGP is required to obtain a charge call. But not all PC fouls are charges.

If A1 grabs a rebound and goes full speed the length of the court, with B1 alongside him, but having never obtained LGP, and A1, frustrated with B1's close proximity, shoves him, that is a PC foul on A1, correct?

Your example is absolutely a PCF. Despite not having established LGP, B1 did not illegally impede A1. Given that, he was entitled to his space on the floor as much as A1 was entitled to his. Thus if A1 shoves B1 out of his entitled space (even if both are moving), foul on A1.

Regarding the OP, in my opinion the defender did not have LGP and illegally impeded the ball handler. But for the sake of your question, if we assume that the defender did have LGP and did NOT illegally impede the ball handler, then we have two judgment options: 1) incidental contact, no call, 2) the ball handler illegally contacted the defender (forearm, shoulder, push-off, or whatever you saw), PCF. If given only these two choices, I would opt for incidental contact, as I didn't see anything particularly egregious on the part of the ball handler.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by ChuckS

If we agree that the defender lost LGP, can't this still be a foul on the offense? Rule 4-23-1 states "Guarding is the act of legally placing the body in the path of an offensive opponent". I interpret that to mean that LGP is required to obtain a charge call. But not all PC fouls are charges.

If A1 grabs a rebound and goes full speed the length of the court, with B1 alongside him, but having never obtained LGP, and A1, frustrated with B1's close proximity, shoves him, that is a PC foul on A1, correct?

LGP is not required to draw a charge. LGP is required to draw a charge only if the defender is moving or jumping. A stationary defender doesn't need LGP.

And yes, it can still be a foul on the offense even if the defender is moving and doesn't have LGP....but not a charge. It would have to be a foul for the offense using an arm, for example, to shove the defender away. Body to body is a block/charge and without an extended arm, that is a what this is.

In your example, sure, that is a PC for the shove. But if, instead, A1 is trying to alter course to go towards the basket, that defender has to have LGP in order be moving in that manner. The defender doesn't, so it is a block.

[Pantherdreams]

Areas where we have agreement:

- You need LGP to draw a charge while moving or jumping.
- The offense can commit a variety of PC fouls that aren't charges.
- Offense initiating the contact is not a defining factor in which call we make.

Area's where we seem to have trouble reaching agreement:
- If and when the defender established/lost LGP.
- If we are officiating the defense the what the defender did wrong.
- When and which path the defender is/should be guarding.

Follow up question:

If A1 is driving toward a sideline, and the defensive posture B1 wishes to take is to maintain their torso and feet squared to the path to the rim.Are we saying: a) They would have LGP is the offense was attacking the basket? b) they do not have LGP if the offense is attacking the sideline? c) and now if the offense chooses to change their angle to a diagonal or an attempt to" turn the corner" and angles into the defense, are we saying that contact which occurs must be a block or no call on the defense (exempting a shove or push off of some kind) because we need them to re-established LGP in this new path too?

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Pantherdreams

Follow up question:

If A1 is driving toward a sideline, and the defensive posture B1 wishes to take is to maintain their torso and feet squared to the path to the rim.Are we saying: a) They would have LGP if the offense was attacking the basket? b) they do not have LGP if the offense is attacking the sideline? c) and now if the offense chooses to change their angle to a diagonal or an attempt to" turn the corner" and angles into the defense, are we saying that contact which occurs must be a block or no call on the defense (exempting a shove or push off of some kind) because we need them to re-established LGP in this new path too?

I believe "path" has a duplicity of meaning. One, it is the direction the opponent is actually moving. Two, it is the "desired" direction between the opponent and the basket. Which one it is at any given time depends on the actions surrounding it. Looking at it another way, the path they need to have obtained LGP is the one being taken when contact occurs.

In the above question, a defender between the dribbler and basket has LGP should the dribbler turn to attack the basket. However, I don't think B1 has LGP if B1 attempts to cut-off A1's path across the court. This is not unlike A1 running directly at the basket and B1 facing A1 from behind.....B1 can't just run a little faster than A1 and cut in front of A1 with B1's back still to A1.

[rbruno]

Well I understand the not having LGP theory. But if the defense is running along side someone not in LGP and the offensive player wards off or makes contact with his arm/hand etc. I have a PCF which is what it looked like in this video.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by rbruno

Well I understand the not having LGP theory. But if the defense is running along side someone not in LGP and the offensive player wards off or makes contact with his arm/hand etc. I have a PCF which is what it looked like in this video.

The arm only came out after the initial contact with shoulder to torso. It was already a defensive foul before the arm came out. The arm subsequently being extended doesn't change it to a PCF.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

The arm only came out after the initial contact with shoulder to torso. It was already a defensive foul before the arm came out. The arm subsequently being extended doesn't change it to a PCF.

Yeah, to those that just call a block automatically. This level honestly wants more charges called and if it is a coin flip, I am calling a charge. I think it is a charge anyway because the defender had LGP and took the contact in the chest. I honestly cannot even believe this is a debate.

Peace

[jeremy341a]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

if it is a coin flip, I am calling a charge. I think it is a charge anyway because the defender had LGP and took the contact in the chest. I honestly cannot even believe this is a debate.

Peace

I am in this camp.